Intensity = %1RM

[majutsu]

i understand what you're asking. no. there isn't.

there couldn't be. In order for 1RM, and therefore intensity and hypertrophy training science to be reducible to a single physiologic parameter, two things would be logically necessary: 1)We would have to understand muscle hypertrophy at the biochemical level in full. We don't. 2) There would have to be a single factor for hypertrophy triggering, which with what we know in physiology is highly unlikely. IGF, satellite activation, ph, lactic acid, ATP and IP3, IL, enkephalins, etc are already implicated in a complex multi-factorial vector space.

While you continue to insist you are free of HIT, you keep making comments that suggest you are not free from their logical faults. HIT, being descended from Ayn Rand's cult, worshipped deductive logic. There were Aristotlean reductionists. To assume that there is a physiological root to exercise science is to assume that it is always possible to have complete reduction of every problem to some physical parameter that is simple and not complicated. Ayn Rand's epistemology, which Mike swallowed whole as did others in HIT less obviously, viewed any thing but a simple physical parameter (like ATP level) as a concept, an amalgam of many physical parameters in some yet unelucidated form.

Modern science has no incentive to believe this. It has not held up in quantum mechanics etc. Ayn Rand is famous, like Einstein, for saying quantum mechanics must be WRONG because it didn't fit the idea of science pre-1960. Particularly that statistical prediction was incomplete knowledge and not scientific understanding. Now, instead, we view the science of anything, economics, biology, etc, as a body of definitions and rules for an activity that best determine function and plans future action in that field. For example, it is highly unlikely that economics will best be understood in electrons and ATP versus supply and demand. Same is true for muscle hypertrophy. In fact much of biology is like this. Interestingly enough, it is really modern biology that is bringing this new scientific revolution.

The modern understanding of life is going to be very real and very physical, but very different than the most recent scientific models which squashed every field of study into some poor-fitting physical sciences model. In the new biology, complex entities like function and adaption may be the root terms and cornerstones of a new human understanding.

This is a hot and deep topic. Another post I made in another thread on this sub-board goes into greater detail on this very issue if you are interested. Also, in the spirit/science/philosophy board (we are trying to separate science by petition, contact samoth), I recommend and detail the book this comes from. I ammend that recommendation now by saying to blend that book with churchland's new book is better.

If this is all too much for you, put it this way. Short answer - no. 1RM or intensity will not be converted into ATP or any physiologic variable because that is single-factor theory like HIT, and HIT is wrong. Single-factor means there is a single factor, and that's what you asking for. Though single-factor theory (like pre-newtonian cartoon physics) looks convincing and is hard to eradicate from the brain (as you see you are infected with single-factor theory HIT still), the first post was intended to highlight for you it's ridiculousness and the fact that it is as illogical as hell. "Attain you bodybuilding dreams -- suicide tonight." That's a laugh. Ditch the single factor theory of the 70s and shave them sideburns.











ps are you a grad student in physiology? The questions are great but over-the-top. Most people (self-included) only want BIG GUNS!

And MC, I never got to tell you how much I enjoyed that circle analogy. I really didn't know of HIT pirating of that term. I guess they even hoodwinked me on that one.

 

[Jeff1]

Majutsu,

Thanks for the reply.

I can assure you that I no longer think that hypertrophy is reducable to a single variable. In other words, intensity alone doesn't equal hyptertrophy, which is the screwed up pseudo-scientific hypothesis that HIT puts forward. I guess that's what happens when you get your terms all messed up eh. Volume, frequency, total work, calories, and the various physiological processes you mentioned are all involved, which HIT virtually ignores.

I was simply wondering if certain physiological processes speed up as the %1RM increases. In aerobics, the rate of energy conversion speeds up I think. I thought there might be an equvalent in anaerobic exercise, such as ATP conversion into energy, or perhaps protien degredation. Those are only guesses though, and I don't know the details. Of course this wouldn't be the only thing responsible for hypertrophy, but I thought it might play a role in the SAID principle. We know that training our 1RM causes different adaptations than training our 12RM, which also causes different adaptations than training our 1000RM. I thought this might have to do with the different physiological processes involed per unit time when training at different intensities (RM).

I'm also well aware of One and Two Factor Theories. I've actually spent the last 6 months on a HIT board trying to educate them on Two Factor Theory. That's a damn hard thing to do, and most of them still don't get it, despite the relative simplicity of the basic theory. Again though, I don't know all the physiological details, only the general theory.

Thanks again Majutsu,
Jeff

PS: Not a student of physiology at all. Most of it is greek to me.

 

[Madcow2]

I guess you could consider rate coding as a variable. Basically all your fibers are recruited well before 1RM - the exact %1Rm varies but 50-85% is safe and covers just about everything in the body. Given that all fibers are recruited you have synchronization and rate coding to increase from there. And from what I gather rate coding increases linearly and spikes at a very high clip once concentric failure is hit (someone fairly knowledgable that I'm inclined to trust said their research indicated exponential which anywhere near that kind of rate has massive implications for fatigue and 'beyond failure methods').

The only problem with aligning intensity with rate coding is that reps are often done in sets. Meaning, as you fatigue during a set your 'point in time' 1RM decreases. So your 20 rep set to failure might take a bit to get to the threshhold where all fibers are recruited, then rate coding will increase as fatigue continues until such point as it is maximized (or reached it's 'concentric success limit') when failure occurs. So a low intensity weight being used for the set but you get to the point during the set of high rate coding as your point in time 1RM is reached after enough reps.

I think that's as close as you can get to what you are looking for. Maybe check out this thread and NWLifter's posts which are basically straight out of Enoka's Neuromechanics book: http://www.drdarden.com/readTopic.do?id=394848

 

[Jeff1]

Thanks Madcow,

I don't think Rate Coding is what I'm looking for though. As you said, most fibres are recruited immediately with even a weight of medium intensity, and rate coding is simply the frequency at which they're firing. Fibres can hit their limit at any point on the fatigue curve, depending on the intensity of the weight. I guess though, if rate coding is higher on rep 1 of your 1RM compared to rep 1 of your 10RM, then rate coding would be higher per unit time at a higher intensity (%1RM).

Maybe I could ask the question in a different way. My understanding of muscle physiology is not the best, so you'll have to fill in the blanks a bit, or correct me to help me out.

When our muscles do anaerobic work, what do they use as energy? I thought ATP was converted into usable energy. Whatever it is, does lifting my 1RM once convert more energy per unit time than lifting my 10RM once? "Intensity" is defined in exercise science independentally of effort, so although more reps increases the effort, it doesn't increase the intensity. It does, however, increase the volume, and thus the demands, under the Stress Model.

I'll try it another way. If I do one rep at my 1RM and one rep at my 10RM, how will the physiological process in my body differ? Do I convert more energy per unit time to lift my 1RM compared to my 10RM? The 1RM is "harder," or "more demanding," but does the physiological process in my body speed up or something so I can actually do the work?

I know these are annoying questions, and answering them won't change how we train, but I'm just curious.

Thanks in advance,
Jeff

 

[Madcow2]

I see where you are trying to go with it but I don't think you are ever going to fit intensity into something so clean and tidy from a physiology point of view. Intensity is a programming term used to define and construct training and it originated specifically for this purpose at a time when we really knew almost nothing about the internal workings relative to today. It's usefulness is in program design and workload/tonnage calcs but mainly just so we can talk about this stuff using common terms and communicate. Using the weightlifting intensity on aerobic work reveals that areobic work is performed so far out on the 1RM spectrum that it's going to basically be homogenous on the body's systems with only speed/heart rate/duration that are really going to be factors (i.e. this stuff is far far out on the <1% intensity spectrum). A lot more going on and too many things impacted over the rest of the spectrum and a lot of it will probably be driven by the combination of volume and intensity as I can really only think that the amount of weight in any single rep impacting recruitment (which maxes well below 100% intensity) and rate coding (which is clean within the context of a single rep). To be honest, strict physics and physiological definitions are far far cleaner. In weightlifting, intensity is mainly just utilitarian rather than attempting to describe internal processes.

 

[Jeff1]

I'm not really trying to fit intensity into a nice neat physiological package. I do understand that it is mostly a utilitarian measurement so we can calculate workload and the demands of our training. Makes perfect sense to me in that respect.

I was just curious as to what energy systems are used to do anaerobic work, and if those systems increase something as the %1RM increases. Looking at Zat's book, I see that the rate of protien degredation increases as the intensity (%1RM) increases, so maybe that's something?

Under the Stress Model, the intensity of the stress is defined as the "qualitative measurement." The intensity determines the quality of the stress, while the volume determines the quantity. I was thinking that, perhaps, intensity is your "SAID Principle Regulator" or something like that, as training your 1RM will elicit different adaptations that training your 10RM will. The differing physiological processes going on, given your intensity of exercise, may be what regulates the adaptations.

I don't know enough about the physiological stuff going on to say anything about this. In areobics, the body has to convert energy faster as the % of maximum heart rate increases, hence the definition of intensity as % maximum heart rate. I don't know the details though, but was thinking that perhaps some similar processes were going on as %1RM increased in anaerobic exercise. I'm pretty much just rambling and thinking out loud now lol.

Cheers,
Jeff

 

[Kane Fan]

lol....Hi, my name is Jeff and I'm a recovering HITaholic.


I do understand the three variables under the Stress Model, those being intensity, volume, and frequency, and do understand how they interact and how we calculate them to get the "magnitude of demands" of a training protocol (ie: work done).

What I'm missing though is the physiological reasons for the %1RM definition. I think the aerobic % of maximum heart rate definition is used because the higher the percentage of maximum heart rate, the faster happy-go-lucky stuff is converted per unit time to preform the work. I would assume that the anaerobic %1RM definition is used because the higher the percentage of one rep maximum, the faster happy-go-lucky stuff is converted per unit time in order to preform the work.

I just don't know exactly what the "happy go lucky stuff" is in each context. My first guess would be that, in the anaerobic context, the higher the %1RM, the faster ATP is converted into energy in order to preform the work. I have no clue if this is accurate, it's just an semi-educated guess.

Can anyone give me a hand here?

Cheers,
Jeff

well it's more a factor of what can be quantified and what cant
% of 1 RM can be easily put to a number
no other definition of INtensity can
I don't know if there is any internal body reason tho

 

[silver_shadow]

high intensity training
mike mentzer, arthur jones, etc

similar to rest pause isn't it? isn't DC training in this category too?